[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6051878,"mediaKeyId","3425945-98f75d4ec8a941a270845fa7f9b75fb9","parentId",3425945,"title","Swansea team weighs three site approaches; wetlands, ledge and traffic shape choices","audioSeconds",5022,"startMs",2934000,"endMs",7956000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3425945-98f75d4ec8a941a270845fa7f9b75fb9&start=2934&end=7956","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3425945-98f75d4ec8a941a270845fa7f9b75fb9/thumbnail_2934000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6051878/Massachusetts/Swansea-team-weighs-three-site-approaches-wetlands-ledge-and-traffic-shape-choices","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6051878-cf44967347aeea40d11b2f3a00521551/orig.mp4?Expires=1771045809&Signature=TLzZt8M55iBNdLPIv7AMjInWWIrtIjgJGi~FM4C-FoqF7mZkbHfwAl4XaqZLhEgSfxQhCdqlDO6YYL54YCFGM9-1CdVDoPKh5DEwVZnY9Ji8lgOQLMTlnoNPnAoPpPNEOZVTbs8DFEdybNPywcyQ5NBb-mpIsESEd0s3F0W7HccbIxe6s0Rv1B55UmxtH7RArDHKWTnDR1WJLhDVAeLqhC1yj13Gz2br0MP8IdudmBqHuRPHO23JtsBX~ZztZvcbD2HprJPc4H3gdYyvrhFE~3HmmSZy-gwUzFk7wio4abyxsHE7t531tkQ2Z95uNpDdpNl55IRPlfLby5mVlKlLog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Swansea Public Schools, MA","date","2025-05-15T00:00:00Z","article","At its May 15 meeting the Swansea School Building Committee reviewed site options and constraints for the junior‑high project, including the existing school site, an addition/renovation scheme that preserves part of the historic building, and three new‑construction layouts on the district’s Wood Street/high school parcel.

The consultant team described the principal site constraints: wetlands and 100‑ and 200‑foot resource buffers, Chapter 97 land near Milford Pond, an on‑site stream, a 1927 historic building whose facade/use is constrained by a trust, and variable ledge across both candidate parcels. The team told the committee it will file a notice of intent with the DEP and work with the Conservation Commission as part of permitting.

On the existing school parcel, Finegold Alexander showed an addition/renovation approach that demolishes a maintenance building, constructs an addition on the existing asphalt so as to avoid the most sensitive habitat, phases occupancy so students can remain on site during construction, and restores site circulation with separate bus and parent loops. Consultants warned that phasing on the constrained site increases duration and premium costs and that modular swing‑space or off‑site rentals could be necessary during work.

The consultants offered three new‑construction concepts for the Wood Street/high school parcel (labelled N1, N2 and N3). Each is a compact, multi‑story building arranged to limit wetland impact and to take advantage of daylighting; the N3 concept nests the building into a slope to reduce visible massing and preserve more existing high‑school parking areas. All three new‑construction options would shorten construction duration and reduce educational disruption compared with a multi‑year phased renovation, but they would require ledge testing, septic redefinition and traffic/access changes.

Public safety and emergency access were recurring topics: the fire and police chiefs asked about circulation around buildings and suggested pervious emergency access surfaces where necessary to limit wetland impact. Consultants said emergency access could be achieved with stabilized, vegetated grid surfacing rather than full paving in parts of the buffer, but that any encroachment requires ConCom and DEP permitting.

Cost and schedule implications: consultants reminded the committee that phasing a renovation can increase contractor premiums, reduce bidder interest (if off‑site shuttle parking is required), and extend construction into a multi‑year program; they estimated a repair or phasing renovation could be longer and costlier on a district share basis than a new build in certain scenarios. The team recommended carrying all options forward to the PSR so the MSBA and community can compare program, site impacts, and district share.

Decision/direction: the committee did not eliminate any site alternatives; the consultants recommended advancing all three new‑construction alternatives plus the addition/renovation and repair options into the next PSR phase for further study. The committee agreed and directed the team to refine site testing (borings, ledge), traffic analysis and wetland permitting assumptions for PSR.

Ending: The project team asked the committee to confirm evaluation criteria by June 3 so the study team can finalize the PSR package that will compare educational outcomes, environmental impacts, constructability and district cost for each option.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Swansea School Building Committee Meeting May 15th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Presented site options included staying on the current junior‑high campus (repair or add/reno) and three new‑construction concepts on the high‑school/Wood Street parcel; wetlands, historic‑trust constraints, ledge and traffic were central concerns.","taxTitle","Swansea Public Schools, School Boards, Massachusetts","taxId",69255,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6051884,"Committee approves space summary and educational plan; architects include auditorium, larger gym and additional labs in program",465,1831000,2296000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3425945-98f75d4ec8a941a270845fa7f9b75fb9&start=1831&end=2296","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3425945-98f75d4ec8a941a270845fa7f9b75fb9/thumbnail_1831000.jpg","/articles/6051884/Massachusetts/Committee-approves-space-summary-and-educational-plan-architects-include-auditorium-larger-gym-and-additional-labs-in-program","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6051884-ec64e1b460dca354d330af37c58d8ab8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771045809&Signature=i4--YJcMkxDqWT~RVPPEXKvKHVYOlMAJP5iCtlpyaWgS4c0t2IIVSSejS5R0~4StHcEa7QP2~ceqDYXngZx-eb2-zqu7IMalGNi4DdFuI4ZwARlY~yOMNvPAbQ7iMgvJzZ7dlt7GpvmqhPd5T-76OTLTWcYWA1NVFMVnxThRfzVuaEDtZBGsD7GdZRDLefqmQmjdQK0IjD~~nWNU2NvtcoFKZfvbSn7XHAC1m3Bl6TdugrC7ngtw0KUFego3dM-CNaWM00EPoDWPtr7jV2tnRgI9hiwDnr5uxwrhb2SVOYeQIe5mfOZjnN8jW10cdY8ry2hvcDi1flJPZOlysILyIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Swansea School Building Committee voted unanimously May 15 to approve a space summary and educational plan that adds program elements the district requested, including a 510‑seat auditorium, a larger gym and expanded science and teacher planning space.

The approved educational program will be used to size options presented to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) and to cost the three principal approaches under study: repair only, addition/renovation and new construction. Finegold Alexander (architect) presented the space summary and noted where the program departs from MSBA baseline guidelines.

Architectural representative (Finegold Alexander) explained the program deviations the team will request from the MSBA: one additional science lab above the MSBA baseline, three teacher planning spaces (220 square feet each) in core curriculum, a 9,000‑square‑foot gym to allow two PE stations/cross courts, and a 6,600 net‑square‑foot auditorium programmed as a 510‑seat space. The architect said those deviations increased the building program to about 118,739 gross square feet in the current design assumptions.

Why it matters: The MSBA’s reimbursement formulas use standard guidelines for laboratories, gyms and core spaces; when a district’s educational program requests larger or additional spaces, the town typically pays the incremental (non‑reimbursable) cost. Committee members discussed that the auditorium is an add‑on the MSBA will not fund (the architect called it an “extra”), and that the committee should formally decide whether to include the auditorium before schematic design because removing it later becomes more difficult.

Specific program clarifications recorded at the meeting include:
- The MSBA baseline typically provides three science labs for the projected enrollment; Swansea’s program adds a fourth science lab to meet curriculum needs.
- The MSBA baseline includes limited teacher planning space; the district program adds three 220‑square‑foot teacher planning rooms.
- The larger gym is sized at 9,000 square feet (standard MSBA middle‑school gym is 6,000 square feet).
- The auditorium is programmed at 6,600 net square feet (about 9,900 gross with a 1.5 net‑to‑gross multiplier) and the firm estimated an approximate district cost of $11–12 million for that element as an unsubsidized add‑on.

School administrators stressed that the modernized library/media center and upgraded special‑education spaces were priorities because current facilities limit program delivery. As the district's representative put it, the project is an opportunity to “bring out of [students] the best that is in them,” language the team used when framing educational goals for the new spaces.

Formal action: The committee voted 7–0 to accept the educational plan and space summary as presented. The vote was by roll call; all voting committee members recorded aye.

Ending: The approved program will be the basis for schematic layouts and will be included in the PSR materials submitted to the MSBA; the committee asked the consultants to provide line‑item estimates for the elements that are outside MSBA eligibility so the town can evaluate incremental district costs.

","Swansea's school committee approved an educational plan and space summary that adds a 510‑seat auditorium, a 9,000‑square‑foot gym and an extra science lab and teacher planning spaces to the district program; the committee voted 7–0 to accept the plan.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6051890,"Swansea committee reviews MSBA cost scenarios and votes to price a repair‑only option",8837,401000,9238000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3425945-98f75d4ec8a941a270845fa7f9b75fb9&start=401&end=9238","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3425945-98f75d4ec8a941a270845fa7f9b75fb9/thumbnail_401000.jpg","/articles/6051890/Massachusetts/Swansea-committee-reviews-MSBA-cost-scenarios-and-votes-to-price-a-repaironly-option","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6051890-6054fa485ee9dc5c15db7dda72af5e1a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771045809&Signature=Sv622Cyxp6C059MX9QvMVflacAhBoqTsoVpQZoOqo66soVPNWUE8MFXYKg8G0r5ifxYgTRo6-mI2TPPmT4mseZ0NQVrbasFjCnnbbZSfzx1-jCmK-osSDp2~fava1rEWztZdaog6HUsVv5~kjbkmw0hJrTr3xrEKattC1BMBBidrQIcL4lAav5Cre0VCQ0Gd44za-LkmrcZO~CAGbSZK4Dm1NsTx6aLTpzDl-EDwZZkKK0tPVV6gB2BVeKoYX8YA-7b8N-rtPKA8SjwKfGvc9ArYEWp7TGDaii-sFvgK3Mz0reUoS0w5xfCnI1TxOYAor3tl9YyXeTYYMUx0KCqKRA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Swansea School Building Committee on May 15 reviewed cost scenarios from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) data and voted unanimously to approve a repair‑only scope for pricing as part of the district's feasibility study.

The decision means the project team will prepare a formal price for bringing the existing junior‑high facility up to current codes — including a full mechanical, electrical and plumbing replacement, exterior envelope upgrades and stormwater and septic work — and will submit that priced option to the MSBA alongside addition/renovation and new‑construction alternatives.

Why it matters: The MSBA drives reimbursement through per‑square‑foot caps and eligibility rules; the committee must compare multiple options (repair, addition/reno, new build) on a consistent basis so town voters and the MSBA can evaluate the district share and state grant implications.

OPM Chris Leffler of PMA Consultants told the committee, “We're currently in module 3, the feasibility study,” and outlined a timeline that anticipates the district vote in fall 2026 and a likely bid period in early 2028. PMA project estimator Chad Curtin briefed the group on cost drivers, saying, “So, we're gonna talk numbers for really the first time,” and explained the team was using MSBA project data to estimate construction cost ranges without final designs.

PMA presented four illustrative scenarios for each delivery approach (repair, addition/renovation, new construction) that varied by gym and auditorium size. Curtin noted the current MSBA combined building-and-site cap shown to the committee was $649 per square foot while the team's midpoint construction estimate for future bids was roughly $1,000 per square foot — figures the committee used only for comparative purposes.

The PMA team stressed several cost factors that affect district share: modular classroom allowances (a $5 million allowance in the repair scenario that the MSBA does not reimburse), delivery method premiums for phased renovation (a phased‑work premium the team modeled at about 30% on direct trade costs and a construction manager at‑risk premium they conservatively set at 7%), contingency assumptions, and MSBA base‑rate and cap adjustments that can change a project's reimbursement.

Committee members asked about timing and market risk, and Curtin cautioned that MSBA caps can change; he added that a recent MSBA policy change prevents a project's base reimbursement rate from decreasing at project scope and budget agreement time — a rule the team said protects communities in some market fluctuations.

Formal action: The committee approved the repair‑only scope of work “as presented” by roll call vote 7–0. The record shows all voting members present cast aye votes.

Next steps: The project team will carry the priced repair option forward into the next submission material and continue developing addition/renovation and new‑construction alternatives for comparison during the PSR (Preferred Schematic Report) phase. The consultants asked the committee to confirm evaluation criteria by June 3 for the PSR submission schedule.

Ending: The committee positioned the repair scenario as one of three priced options to present to the MSBA and the public; the team said the trio of priced options will let the town and the MSBA compare district cost, reimbursement and educational outcomes before the district authorizes local funding.","At a May 15 meeting the Swansea School Building Committee heard MSBA cost scenarios and approved a scope to price a repair‑only option while continuing study of addition/renovation and new‑construction alternatives.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Swansea team weighs three site approaches; wetlands, ledge and traffic shape choices

Committee approves space summary and educational plan; architects include auditorium, larger gym and additional labs in program

Swansea committee reviews MSBA cost scenarios and votes to price a repair‑only option